Comments on Profile Post by PaladinJessa

  1. HexMozart88
    HexMozart88
    I have two questions in my brain right now:
    1. How the heck did you find that out?
    2. Do I even want to know the answer to number 1?
    Jul 10, 2019
  2. Poryg
    Poryg
    No wonder. Legitimate self defence doesn't mean you're allowed to hit them back, you are only allowed to use necessary force to thwart the attack.
    Jul 10, 2019
  3. gstv87
    gstv87
    how about "We were roleplaying Morpheus versus Neo" ?
    Jul 10, 2019
  4. Nekohime1989
    Nekohime1989
    Just tell them you thought they were the men in black and your alien and that their laws dont apply.
    Jul 10, 2019
  5. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    Yeah the law can be pretty patronizing. I'm always more on the libertarian side of things, so I often had great debates with my friends in law school.
    Jul 10, 2019
    Philosophus Vagus likes this.
  6. Windows i7
    Windows i7
    These sort of laws can vary widely between jurisdictions. I'd recommend knowing your local law on it just in case if you live in an area where such a situation is at all likely.
    Jul 11, 2019
  7. Windows i7
    Windows i7
    Also, never read forum posts as actual legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney if you need legal advice for a real situation.
    Jul 11, 2019
  8. Wavelength
    Wavelength
    Depends! If those were "fighting words" (meant to antagonize), it's not an adequate justification. If they were genuinely ASKING you to hit them (examples: consensual sparring, taking focus off their pain somewhere else), it generally is an adequate justification.
    Jul 11, 2019
  9. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    @Wavelength Actually not true. Most western countries have patronizing laws. For example, sword duels are banned in most countries, and even if both parties are consensual, it is still a criminal offense (not justified).
    Jul 11, 2019
  10. Wavelength
    Wavelength
    @MushroomCake28 That's because sword duels are so deadly. Agreeing to non-lethal physical contact for sport - boxing, fencing, etc. - is legal, even if it's not part of an official league. Agreeing to a fist fight, for fun, shouldn't result in criminal charges unless there is intent to hurt someone (mens rea) beyond what a reasonable man would expect from a fist fight.
    Jul 12, 2019
  11. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    @Wavelength You can't agree to be a victim of a criminal offense. If someone agrees to be hit really hard (hard enough to constitute a criminal offense) and you hit him, it is a criminal offense and you can get prosecuted. In reality, the AG will decide not to prosecute since there are more urgent matters.
    Jul 12, 2019
  12. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    @Wavelength And for assault, it only requires a general mens rea, not a specific mens rea (like in the case of murder). General mens rea only requires the prosecutor to prove that the action was intentional and that offender had a general idea of the potential consequences. (source: I'm a law student).
    Jul 12, 2019
    Wavelength likes this.
  13. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    So it is possible to prosecute, but the AG will use his discretion to not prosecute. Or he can simply fine the offender, or even both parties.
    Jul 12, 2019
  14. Wavelength
    Wavelength
    @MushroomCake28 Thanks for the explanation. I have to admit I don't find it compelling because of scenarios where it would be absurd. Assault is the act of threatening (or making someone believe that) undue harm will come to them, yes? Under your explanation of general mens rea, this would mean that the state could prosecute the boxers or organizers in...
    Jul 12, 2019
  15. Wavelength
    Wavelength
    ...any ordinary Boxing/MMA match, and also means they could press criminal charges against any game show where mild harm can come to the contestants, such as "The Chair" or "101 Ways to Leave a Game Show" (in spite of any contracts the contestants signed). I get that the AG generally wouldn't pursue it, but it still sounds patently absurd that charges in these situations would be lawful.
    Jul 12, 2019
  16. Poryg
    Poryg
    In my country boxing/MMA would not be an assault, as long as you can prove it's a boxing/MMA event. If you have a qualified arbiter and a team of medics, in other words if the action is properly regulated, then it is fine and nobody can sue you for assault inside boxing ring. You're also required to sign a limitation of liability.
    Jul 12, 2019
  17. Poryg
    Poryg
    Nevertheless, what is not possible is for two guys, even if they agree to it, to go out into streets and have a fistfight. That would be classified as disorderly conduct (up to 2 years of prison) in the better case and in the worst case as fistfight (up to 3 years of prison).
    Jul 12, 2019
  18. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    To be clear, it is possible to consent for violence and some cases of assaults (professional fighting sports is an example). It usually depends on the level of violence. Like technically slapping someone in the face (like conjugal dispute) is assault, but no one is prosecuted for that (talking about normal slaps, not the ones that gets you to the hospital).
    Jul 12, 2019
  19. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    However, when it's a high level of violence, you can enter the aggravated assault category, and there consent is rarely admissible. One thing about criminal law is that it is often unclear, and it's almost a case by case thing.
    Jul 12, 2019
  20. Poryg
    Poryg
    The difference between a boxing/MMA match and a fistfight in open air would be, the former is properly regulated and when you go there as a spectator, you know what to expect. The latter is public endangerment, because unregulated fights have unpredictable results.
    Jul 12, 2019
    MushroomCake28 likes this.
  21. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    @Wavelength Also the general mens rea rule is to prevent arguments like "it was never my intention to send him to the hospital. I just wanted to scare him a little", which would be a good enough argument for specific mens rea. Generally, sophisticated crimes require specific mens rea (first degree murder, conspiracy, treason, rape, etc.)
    Jul 12, 2019
  22. Poryg
    Poryg
    Well, this is where I can beg to differ. In our country laws are crystal clear in this place. In boxing the health of both participants comes in first place and both the regulations and professionally trained arbiters try their best to preserve it. Nobody can guarantee that in a street fight, so it's automatically illegal.
    Jul 12, 2019
  23. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    Well Canada and the US come from a common law tradition, where jurisprudence is much more important than in the civil jurisdiction. Still, I'm sure it's a lot of case by case in your country for criminal law in general due to the nature of criminal law. How do you differentiate between assault and aggravated assault? Sure there's a definition, but it's still a case by case scenario.
    Jul 12, 2019
    Wavelength likes this.
  24. Poryg
    Poryg
    The only sad thing is, our laws are also ridiculously strict. You're not allowed to hit the guy in the fact if he assaults you. You can only use necessary force to stop the threat. Also, until he physically threatens you from close distance, you may not engage in physical maneuvers in any way apart from trying to keep your distance.
    Jul 12, 2019
  25. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    And how far is "necessary force to stop the threat" (so legitimate self-defense)? It's not the same thing if the guy has a gun or uses his bare hands. You understand now why I say it's a case by case scenario.
    Jul 12, 2019
  26. Poryg
    Poryg
    "Necessary self defence is an act otherwise unlawful that either deflects or prevents an attack or a threat of one against you or a person/object you're protecting. Damage inflicted to the attacker does not need to be the same as or lower than the damage that was about to be inflicted by him." That's the definition.
    Jul 12, 2019
  27. Poryg
    Poryg
    In practice it means that unless you're at a serious disadvantage, you're not allowed to use anything to assert dominance. For example you can't combat fists with a baton. You can't combat a baton with a knife, since knife is a murderous weapon. You can't pull out a gun if someone pulls a knife, but still keeps distance at you.
    Jul 12, 2019
  28. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    And whether a particular act is part of that definition is another story. Also, there's one part missing in the definition: the act must be proportionate to the danger. If you shot someone who's about to steal your phone and has no weapon, then that'S beyond the scope of self defense.
    Jul 12, 2019
  29. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    Now same scenario, but the guy reaches inside his pocket. You think he has a weapon, but in reality he has none, and you shot him. Is that self defense? Perhaps, maybe yes, maybe no. I'd probably say no as a judge, but you can certainly make the argument for self-defense.
    Jul 12, 2019
  30. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    Same scenario, but you punch the guy really hard in the face and he gets hospitalized for serious injury? Self-defense? Again, you can make the case for either side. That's what I mean when I say that criminal law is a case by case thing.
    Jul 12, 2019
  31. Poryg
    Poryg
    It becomes more complex when there are serious imbalances. When the assault turns into aggravated assault, your health is at risk, so you can get away with more aggressive methods of self defence. When there are imbalances out of your favor, you're allowed to match the imbalances... But you always need to perform necessary force. So you can't for example go for the kill.
    Jul 12, 2019
  32. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    And just for fun, again with the same scenario: you punch the guy hard, but not dangerously hard. A normal person would be hurt, but not seriously injured. However, the guy dies from the shock because of a pre-condition. Is that self-defense? I would say yes, but you can also make the case for the other side. Criminal law isn't like corporate law, or liability cases where it is much more objectives.
    Jul 12, 2019
  33. Poryg
    Poryg
    Both cases you presented are not self defence in our jurisdiction. Reaching into a pocket does not create immediate danger. He may have a weapon in there, but until he starts physically threatening you, you're not allowed to take action. So when he reaches into his pocket and you shoot him, that's plain murder.
    Jul 12, 2019
  34. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    @Poryg But you get my point that the evaluation of what is the limit of self-defense depends on the particular case. It depends on a multitude of factors, that's why criminal cases are very complex. If there was one simple rule, criminal cases would be much easier and less long.
    Jul 12, 2019
  35. Poryg
    Poryg
    If someone tries to steal your phone, you are not allowed to punch him here. That's a counterattack, not a self defence. You can push him away. You can deal with his arm. But you're not allowed to punch him.
    Jul 12, 2019
  36. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    And what if you punch him and he dies because of a pre-condition that you are not aware of? What if the police has issued a bolo with "danger, armed man"? What if he has a knife and you have a gun? How about knife vs shattered glass bottle?
    Jul 12, 2019
  37. Poryg
    Poryg
    I get your point. But the problem is, in our country they are for the most part simple. The moment you go into the offensive, it's not self defence. That is absolute. The threat of danger must be immediate. That is absolute. And the defence must be proportionate to the danger. That is absolute.
    Jul 12, 2019
  38. Poryg
    Poryg
    If you punch him and he dies of a precondition you were not aware of, it's aggravated assault with death consequence. If he has a knife and you have a gun, you can shoot only from point blank range. It's an immediate threat to your life, so you are allowed to go for the kill. Glass bottle is a danger to your health. You're allowed to cut, but not go for the kill.
    Jul 12, 2019
  39. Poryg
    Poryg
    In case of "Caution - armed man" nothing changes, maybe apart from the fact that you may expect that he has a weapon. Until he uses it against you, it's the same as if he had no weapon.
    Jul 12, 2019
  40. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    Well more complex systems with lots of jurisprudence are built on real cases and precedents. So in a country with a low population and low crime rate, perhaps it's more a strict system with everything laid out. But with big countries with tons and tons of cases, you encounter scenarios that you never expected.
    Jul 12, 2019
  41. Poryg
    Poryg
    That would be adequate. In 2018 we had only 6 purposeful killings per 100k people. So we generally don't need to worry about people trying to kill or really hurt us. Well... That is as long as you don't work in some sort of enforcement.
    Jul 12, 2019
  42. Poryg
    Poryg
    The times are changing and people are getting more aggressive towards those who can fine you for something or towards security officers. And in all honesty, these strict laws actually hamper our work a great deal. For example we are not allowed to engage in physical combat until the criminal does. But if I am to subdue him, I'm in point blank range, so he has the advantage.
    Jul 12, 2019
    MushroomCake28 likes this.
  43. Wavelength
    Wavelength
    @MushroomCake28 I think we're in agreement. I don't dispute your explanation of the law, and I feel we agree that in the cases of consensual sparring (without any weapons that could grievously injure) or using physical action to help someone (e.g. take their focus off other pain at their request), there is no mens rea whatsoever and no chance of Aggravated Assault/Agg Battery, right?
    Jul 12, 2019
  44. Poryg
    Poryg
    It's really not the best of a feeling to be in point blank range and have to tensely wait whether they decide to engage in combat or not... and pray that he doesn't pull a knife on me. Knife incidents are getting increasingly common between thiefs and security officers.
    Jul 12, 2019
  45. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    Well more often than not those cases don't have the actus reus necessary.
    Jul 12, 2019
  46. MushroomCake28
    MushroomCake28
    But for professional fighters different arguments have been invoked: no mens rea ( sport is the intention not to hurt), consensual, risk of profession, etc.
    Jul 12, 2019